Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (22 May) . . Page.. 1620 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

below the delivery price is not threatened. Take, for example, ACTION. There is a heavy subsidisation for the route bus services, and that makes competition unlikely; but the operation of the service is clearly a result of a social policy. Indeed, all transit systems in Australia operate at a loss. The aim is service at a level of affordability. This aspect at least is not threatened by the application of the Trade Practices Act. Part IV of the Act allows such anti-competitive aspects to be offset by associated public benefit. So, with ACTION, as with other entities, the Government is, in any case, able to take action to pursue appropriate policies.

I should point out again, as I did in my in-principle speech, what this Bill does not do, because it is very important. It does not require a program of privatisation of government enterprise or of corporatisation. It does not encourage governments to privatise or corporatise. It does not even provide a basis to argue for privatisation or corporatisation, as the Minister appeared to indicate in his introductory speech. The legislation is about competition. It has nothing to do with privatisation or corporatisation. When the former Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, debated this within COAG she made this quite clear, as did other State leaders. Then Federal Minister Gear in his speech to the Federal Parliament said:

... privatisation and the introduction of competition are entirely separate decisions. It is possible, and in many cases clearly desirable, to introduce competition and to realise its economic benefits while retaining public ownership.

This legislation and the agreement the current Chief Minister signed have nothing to say on the question of public or private ownership. In indicating the Opposition's support for this Bill, I therefore make it absolutely clear that the Government should never seek to argue that the Bill provides some form of backing for a program of privatisation or of corporatisation or of outsourcing. I say again that those issues are quite separate.

This Bill should be seen in a broad context, not just as one stand-alone Bill. Improved economic performance is just one element of any government's program, which must also encompass social, environmental and other considerations. The Bill recognises this, but we do rely in large measure on governments to ensure that those principles are maintained. I have to say that I am a little less confident about this legislation now that we have a Liberal-National Party government at the helm.

I am disappointed that this Government did not accept certain of the committee's recommendations. Let me alert the Government to the fact that the Opposition - and, I expect, the crossbenches too - will maintain a close interest in associated social issues. A little time ago I put a question on notice concerning the definition of ACTEW's community service obligations. The answer I got was a little disappointing. It indicated ACTEW's record in this respect but gave no assurance of the rapid issue of a statement by ACTEW. It appears that that is still some time away. I had expected a more forthright response.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .